Stephen Breyer to Retire From Supreme Court After 27 Years

I believe I have said zero about the current nominee. I don’t know anything about her, yet. If I don’t think she’s a good fit, I will say so.

this hasn’t been my point.

 

“Some of you won’t be happy until every position more important than administrative assistant is filled with a straight Christian white male. Gues# what? We tried that for hundreds of years.”

I believe you said that didn’t you? Sounds like support to me.

 

I support diversity on the court and am not upset Biden said so. That’s it.

I will see if this woman agrees with my idea of a good jurist another day.

 

And how you gonna do that? By what she says in her confirmation hearing? Because you’re sure as hell not going to get it from her jurist record.

 

I know it’s hard communicating with a non partisan. Justice Scalia thought RGB belonged on the court, and Justice RGB thought Scalia belonged on the court. They were Each others’ work spouse/really good friends.

If both of them believed a variety of POV are important, who am I to doubt?

What is the required jurist record to be on SCOTUS? Does the candidate meet the criteria?

I’ll do what I’ve been doing for 25 years, or so. Read a variety of articles from a variety of POV.

 

Sorry I've been unable to post here for several days: sickness, snow, family. Her name alone will torment me for the rest of my life.
Does anyone know the song Mrs. Jackson from about 20 years ago? I'll be hearing it every time I hear her name now.

 

hen her parents named her Ketanji they were shouting "Africa" to everyone who heard it. I think that helped Biden choose her. Everyone decades from now that looks at a list of Supreme Court Justices will know that must be that black woman.

 

There was a Justice Brown 1890-1905. Some call him the worst justice in history because he had the honor of writing the Plessy versus Ferguson decision and other racist comments in cases involving overseas possessions.

 

1) You're certainly getting one this time, despite the stigma that will leave on the honor of the nominee who is chosen chiefly for their irrelevant demographic qualities that are immutable and none of their own doing. So pipe down.
2) Life with good behavior is quite a long time, vacancies don't come up so often and when they do they seem to come in clusters. Societal change on a massive scale has only recently (historically speaking) occurred. Natural changes take time to filter through on their own.

It requires a presidential nomination of a person and the advice and consent of the senate which may be withheld in their sole discretion.
Historically the senate has refused to even consider any candidate who is not an attorney, so we take that as a qualification.
They could alter that if they wished, but I find it about as likely as suddenly discovering I might be able to shoot laser beams out of my eyeballs.

These people are appointed for life with good behavior, so you want the best jurist for the job available when you're making the choice because they're going to be there FOR-EVVVVVV-VVVEERRRRRR and when they DO make a vacancy its usually after a good long period as a decrepit person of uncertain continuing mental superiority (see Ginsburg and other oldsters falling asleep during oral arguments etc).
Being *insert demographic category here* has nothing intrinsically to do with being a jurist. It's completely and totally irrelevant to being a jurist.

Unless you'd like to make the argument that *insert demographic category here* gives one a natural advantage in analyzing, interpreting, and practising [sic] American jurisprudence?
Is that your supposition then, that an immutable demographic category more readily qualifies one for jurisprudential analysis?

 

There were 2 Justice Jacksons on the court. Howell Jackson was appointed by Benjamin Harrison with a few days to go after he lost to Cleveland. It was a hasty pick of an older man from a Confederate state so no one would object. Jackson soon got sick but returned to vote to uphold the first federal income tax. Gasping and wheezing he read what he thought would be the winning vote but someone changed his mind and it was a 5-4 loss. He went home and died a couple months later.

 

The other Justice Jackson did things for FDR to which some would apply a crude term. He wrote at length about Roosevelt's court packing plan, so maybe Biden read that last year when he was working on his court packing plan.
Robert Jackson served 1941-54 and young Biden probably read about his death and it stayed with him.
Jackson wrote a lot of good decisions. That's because the other justices thought they should have been chief but Jackson didn't.

 

With that name I think she can beat Lucius Quintus Cinncinnatus Lamar as the strangest name in court history. He was there from 1888 to 1893 in what I call the poison seat. The man before him died after 6 years. Howell Jackson came next and lived for 2. Rufus Peckham lasted 13 but Horace Lurton died in 4 years.

 

People are worried about her radical ideas but what are they?
If she wants the first amendment to cover all pornography, so did Hugo Black.
If she wants to ignore the Constitution in favor of international law, so did Ginsburg.
If she thinks the second amendment allows states to take away all guns, so do many.
If she wants abortion up to the minute of delivery, so do some state legislatures.

 

The good news is she may never be an important justice. She's the fourth new Justice in 5 years. Breyer was the sixth in 8 years and the most insignificant Justice since Harold Hitz Burton (1945-5. The 3 with fewer than 6 years don't count and even one of them was more important.

 

As third in line on the losing side of 6-3 votes she will get crumbs for dissents and only unanimous decisions to write.

 

It appears she married a white guy, so she should get along with Clarence Thomas. Her religion is unannounced so everyone can hope she's one of theirs.

 

Obama put her on the DC Courts in 2013. That's lower than the appeals court but at least Obama should be content.

 

I don't, but some of you clearly don't believe any black woman is qualified.

Perhaps it would be best if we wait until January 21, 2025. Let the voters decide? Of course, if a democrat wins again, we should probably wait until 2029. Just guessing that's okay with you.

 

Unfortunately it looks like no black woman was qualified (being on the appeals court) until 2021. I think most would agree that the only qualified black man in 1967 was Thurgood Marshall.

 

Some are trying really hard to say that only white people will ever be qualified, but they don't want it to sound like they are saying it. This is the reason for all the mental gymnastics about the process being unfair to white people.

Does it matter that the last three appointees were white? Nope; that's not enough. More white people; less non white people.

SCOTUS could really use some more Catholics and Jews, too.

 

Maybe in 2028 some candidate will promise to appoint a Jewish man.

 

An [sic] you attribute that opinion to me, you may quote me or shut your wind open trap and cease attributing racialist sentiments to me when they do not apply.
Ad hominem is barred by the rules, cease your ****ery.

Perhaps we might open the category to "qualified jurists" and sort by their relevant qualifications for the job, rather than irrelevant demographic categories? Perish the thought that we might select a person for a position for life with good behavior only by their relevant qualifications instead of what they look like, who they prefer to rub genitalia with, or what genitalia they are possessed of.

I note as well that you don't seem to like the constitutional qualifications being read to you as you ask. You seem piqued over the very idea that the senate retains ultimate discretion on approval or not.
Did you want the constitutional requirements or not?

 

You don't need courtroom experience for the SCOTUS they do not try in the SCOTUS they hold hearings about previous trials. SCOTUS is about interpreting the laws AS WRITTEN and the Constitution AS WRITTEN.

 

I don't make my choices based on either.

 

Sorry I missed your answer try again

Do you and the left have a list somewhere of all the combinations of race and sex we have to go through before we can finally saying judging people first by the race and sex no longer has to happen and we don't have to consider anymore? How long before it will be acceptable another white male can be appointed to YOU and to the LEFT? If from now on only your and the lefts candidates win the elections how many combinations do we have to go through?